Why Wright is Wrong: Refuting the “New Perspective on Paul” Movement
Since 1963, when Krister Stendahl wrote a paper titled ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’ in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1963), pp. 199-215; republished in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, (Augsburg Fortress Publishers) 1976. the view has been put forth that basically the Reformation got the doctrine of justification wrong. These views explain how it is that so-called Lutherans embraced the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which was a wholescale betrayal of the Reformation. Since Stendahl, have been various protestant theologians who have come along challenging the Reformation doctrine of justification, or, to be more precise, the Reformation rediscovery of the Gospel itself: that we are saved by grace alone, by faith alone, apart from any works, entirely on account of Christ alone. James Dunn has more formalized advanced this movement, labelling it “The New Perspective on Paul” in 1982.
Most recently, it has been N.T. Wright who has popularized the “new perspective” through a series of books and articles. Sadly, even some Lutherans, who should know better, have been sucked into these erroneous views and claims about “chief article” of the Christian faith, as our Lutheran Confessions refer to it: justification. One of the fundamental premises of Wright’s positions [and there are a good many nuances, to be sure] is that whereas the “old perspective” [read: the view of the historic Lutheran Church!] is that when Paul refers to trying to save ourselves by our “works” he is referring to works we do in order to merit God’s favor. The “new perspective” asserts that in fact when Paul talks about works he is referring rather to those who wanted to try to be following rituals associated with the Torah and Judaism, or even ancient Greek religious customs.
Let’s be clear on where Wright is wrong. He has made many important and helpful contributions in support of the historical reliability and accuracy of the New Testament, has been a champion defending the resurrection of Christ, and has been outspoken in support of the Biblical view of homosexality, all for which we must be thankful, but on the doctrine of justification, Wright is simply wrong.
The “new perspective” movement effectively turns the Biblical doctrine of justification on its ear, and contradicts the beating heart both of the Sacred Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, by a redefinition of key terms like “works” and “faith” and it simply opens the door widely to a reintroduction of the errors of Romanism. Lutheran professors today who are dabbling with these views are doing themselves and their students a tremendous disservice, to say the very least, if they are advancing these views as helpful. These views need to be engaged and refuted, not embraced and welcomed.
Recently, on the campus of Southern Baptist Seminary there was a panel discussion which I found to be quite information and helpful, offering reactions to, and refutations of, N.T. Wright’s perspectives on Paul. Here is the presentation
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
I watched this video last night and was cheered by the defense of the Gospel and Luther quotes by people who are not Lutherans.
The topic is important, as it gets to the heart of the matter, and Wright is wrong there, no matter how illustrious and beloved.
I have the same problem with Ben Witherington. His NT commentaries are said to be just excellent. But I bought one and he badmouthed Luther all over the place. Also, I’ve argued with him on his blog. He does not like “simul justus et peccator”, he does not like “imputation”, he refuses to take “sin boldly” in the right context, even when things are pointed out to him. It makes me wonder how reliable his commentary is.
What surprised me that when I spoke with a Lutheran NT prof., he thought Witherington is great. Some of the pastors he has taught think the same thing. I think they need to read more carefully.
Pr McCain, Thanks for the link. I will definitely watch this! I have taken quite an interest in following current debates concerning the ‘new perspective’ of Wright and others. I think you are right that his definition of terms is a problem: ‘faith’ is taken to be faithfulness, which brings works back into justification.
If I can correct a statement above, although Wright is an Anglican bishop (of Durham), James Dunn is not. I believe (though am not sure) that Dunn is Methodist.
In thinking about this, I am going to go out on a bit of a limb. Bear with me. One of the speakers on the panel mentions that Wright objects to the critique of his teaching on justification as something like the STASI.
Afterward, it bothered me to hear about it because it is alluding to something German again. The teaching about justification is not German, but biblical, Luther belongs to everybody, standing up for justification by faith with vigor is not German, and we need no mention of STASI, here.
The reason it piqued me, also, is because I just finished Uwe Siemon-Netto’s book on the “Fabricated Luther”, in relation to WWII. The subject is quite different here. But the implication that things too German may not be appealing to British, and that the ear might not hear so well, could be true. But that would be a big mistake and very unfortunate. If he truly feels persecuted, maybe can use a different image. Theologians of all stripes should be able to take each other seriously no matter their origin or language.
The crazy thing in all this is that Anglican theology was, for 300 years, not different from Lutheran theology on justification. The Anglican teachings on justification in the 16th century can be seen in the Articles of Religion (sometimes called the “39 Articles”, most of which are drawn from the Augsburg Confession.
Anglicanism started going wrong on justification when, in the 1830′s, the Oxford Movement began flirting with Romanizing in the doctrine of justification, gradually discarding the “solas” of the Reformation. (Some Lutherans look kindly on the Oxford Movement, because of its revival of the teaching of the real presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Communion, but that very welcome development is far outweighed by the wrong turns it took on justification, on the authority of Scripture, the role of tradition, and the importance of maintaining canonical succession.)
Anglicanism at first resisted this repudiation of the Reformation stoutly, but gradually Anglo-Catholicism moved Anglicanism away from a sound doctrine of justification and toward an attempted rapprochement with Rome. It is in that context that one must see the British writers who are engaged in the “New Perspective on Paul.” In the United States, Presbyterianism is much infected with the NPP; the Episcopal Church is so preoccupied with pink or lavender pulpits that it doesn’t even address serious theological issues any more.
Some of the stoutest resistance to the NPP has come from relatively liberal European Lutherans like Ernst Käsemann and Peter Stuhlmacher. Stendahl cannot be viewed as typical even in liberal Lutheran circles. However, it is true that Europeans, Lutheran, Reformed and Roman alike, are so anxious to exonerate themselves from any guilt in the Holocaust that anything that seems to condemn Judaism in any way is pushed to the side, no matter how basic it is to Christian theology.
Even though Wright opposes homosexuality the NPP is often used to advocate for that sin. In the NPP the focus is off personal salvation and on ‘inclusion.’ This is used by homosexual advocates to argue for full inclusion of those who are impenitantly engaging in this sin. We are included in the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of saints when we repent of our sins and trust in Christ as Savior just as Luther taught. Inclusion in this community is necessary for salvation but all the impenitant are excluded.
You state: “The “new perspective” asserts that in fact when Paul talks about works he is referring rather to those who wanted to try to be following rituals associated with the Torah and Judaism, or even ancient Greek religious customs.” Again, you are in error. You misrepresent what N.T. Wright is saying; or, rather, what Paul was saying. In other words, ‘New’ and ‘Old’ perspective aside, what exactly was Paul’s perspective? Please, go to the source and get it straight from the horse’s mouth instead of citing a baptist’s viewpoint. N.T. Wright lays his position out clearly in his new book: “JUSTIFICTION”. Wright completely agrees that it is by faith, through grace, not by any merits stored up because of ‘good works’, be they yours or another’s. Through faith, we are in Christ, justified (RIGHTEOUS) in the present in anticipation of the final verdict which God will render at the end of time.
Timothy, Wright has expressed himself on numerous occasions in the language of your final sentence. It is difficult to disagree with it at face value. But though he often talks of justification in the present as being on the basis of faith only, he frequently expands faith to mean faithfulness (thus including human works), and makes the final verdict (which he also speaks of as justification) to be ‘on the basis of the whole life lived’. As far as I know, he has not given the obvious clarification that this ‘whole life lived’ is to be seen as evidence of faith in Christ. And Wright has little patience for imputation. He talks of the righteousness which consists of God’s faithfulness to his covenant, rather than that of Christ which covers us. While he is happy to speak of the renovating work of the Spirit in our lives, and the fruit of that work being manifested at the final verdict, the idea of a justification on the basis of Christ’s righteousness gets little attention. IMO it is not without reason that Lutherans and other heirs of the Reformation are concerned with Wright’s formulations.
Stephen, thank you for your comments. I would like to make two final remarks concerning Wright. First, if I may go out on a limb and say what I think Wright is getting at when he adds “and on the basis of the whole life lived.” What he is clearly not saying is that good works contribute to salvation. According to Wright’s interpretation of Paul, we stand justified, acquitted, certain of the final verdict to be heard when we stand in judgement, and that by grace. I think Wright is at the same time trying to be faithful to passages of Scripture such as Romans 14:12: “Each of us will give an account of himself to God.” Or, 2 Cor 5:10: “For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” Other similar passages which require an accounting of our actions before God include: 1Cor 3:12-15; Philippians 2:12; Hebrews 4:11-13; and, in the Gospels, Jesus parables of the Talents and of the Sheep and Goats. In each instance, concrete actions are tested and not the contents of faith or what we believe. I think that is Wright’s point. So while there is no doubt as to final verdict to be heard, no doubt of our salvation, there will also be an accounting required of us. I think Wright is trying to hold these two in tension without trying to resolve what seems to us to be an obvious paradox: faith, not works, but yet an accounting. Hence Wright’s emphasis on the work of the Spirit.
Secondly, I think you have put your finger on Wright’s weak spot, and I completely agree with you. While Wright often speaks of God’s covenantal faithfulness, and the faithfulness of Jesus to God’s plan, I feel he has not given the adequate attention, and the emphasis due, to the role of Christ’s righteousness. This makes me, as Lutheran, uncomfortable. I think this is in line with concerns about lack of imputation. Here, Wright needs to clarify things. Perhaps this weakness is because of Wright’s emphasis on the over-arching narrative?
Timothy, I think you are right, Wright is trying to hold things in tension. He no doubt sees this as the biblically faithful approach. But I worry that his statements offer less clarity, and make more room for serious error, than those of confessional protestantism. I agree that Wright credits the whole of our salvation to God’s grace. But with this kind of ‘tension’, is there not the potential for some to focus on their works (admittedly, ‘Spirit-wrought’) rather than on humble faith in Christ? I am not saying that is Wright’s intention, of course. But I think it is a danger, especially seeing as inadequate attention is given to Christ’s righteousness for us as being our only security.
Wright is a historian by training and has in a number of places expressed dissatisfaction with traditional dogmatic categories. In particular, he seems to have an aversion to forensic/imputation language. I think it is more than just not giving sufficient attention; he sees the traditional language as not making sense. In his little book “What St Paul Really Said” he says something like, “Righteousness is not something that can be imputed / infused / passed across the courtroom….” (I paraphrase). I would say more than clarification is needed.